Jaques, I don’t know if this was intentional, or a slip form a non-native english speaker,

prey with them

You may have meant pray… or prey. Its probably right either way

trey

So basically we have two candidates who are both pandering to the evangelicals. However, one is explicitly invoking Christianity in his speeches, and the other is keeping his faith to himself. One raised his family in the church of a racist conspiracy-theorist, and the other refuses to meet with James Dobson as a matter of principle.

I’m getting it all twisted…which candidate best represents the separation of church and state?

Jacques

@Sean: oops, yes, I’m actually not a native english speaker. I meant “pray”.

Larry Huffman

Sadly, this is not about seperation of church and state, nor is it about the candidates actual beliefs or ideas…this is all about votes.

Jaques…the answer is simple…the evangelical vote was instrumental in giving us the sorry excuse for a leader that we currently have. These campaigns…regardless of how they would move with new policy and legislation…are pandering to the evangelicals because the evangelicals vote.

Do I like it? No. But, if you think about, it has to be. How else is a person going to get elected without appealing to the majority of voters? No matter how many atheists or skeptics or freethinkers we have…the number is sadly small at the voting booths (or we are all voting for out libertarian or independant candidates who keep themselves above this kind of thing, and also have no shot in hell at winning)…while the evangelical masses get out armed with the names their preachers and religious leaders tell them to vote for. Their C student, failed businessman, moron deluxe gets elected, while our highly educated, well spoken and armed with a real road-map for our country candidates get less than 1% nationally.

I think that everyone who dislikes the way elections work…they need to look at it objectively and from a task-at-hand viewpoint. A lot of the things like this that we all hate, actually have to happen in today’s climate. It just has to be. Candidates will pander to whatever voting blocks are large enough to warrant it. The small party and independant candidates typically run campaigns on principles. They reach their target voters. They carry messages to the other voters, but it is devoid of what those voters want to hear. It is one of the many reasons they fail to make any inroads into the current process. The only people really voting for them are the ones who would have on the 1st day of their candidacy. They have a hard time reaching our voters, because most voters vote based on self-serving issues or hot buttons rather than what is best over-all for our nation. Is it right? no…but it is what it is.

Sometime religious issues are not really religious in nature at all…this isn’t. It is all about votes, nothing more. Neither of these candidates have historically brought religion into politics…even McCain has been more silent than most in his party in this respect. Now that he needs votes, and needs to woo the block of voters that put his predecessor in office, he is talking religion. What choice does he have?

I agree 100% with the notion that religion should not enter into this at all. I would venture that most people who frequent this forum can all process candidates messages without caring what religion they belong to, so long as they lead our nation properly. Unfortunately, there are many voters out there who cannot make any decision without it meshing with what their god would want…and so they have to be told who ‘god’ wants them to vote for. As silly as that sounds, that is how they think…which brings us things like Dubya saying god made him president. The religious hear that, and it does not sound daft as it does to most of us…it validates their vote.

I like tea

So basically we have two candidates who are both pandering to the evangelicals. However, one is explicitly invoking Christianity in his speeches, and the other is keeping his faith to himself. One raised his family in the church of a racist conspiracy-theorist, and the other refuses to meet with James Dobson as a matter of principle.

I’m getting it all twisted…which candidate best represents the separation of church and state?

First of all, Wright isn’t racist or a conspiracy theorist. What are you referring to? That he blamed 9/11 on the government? Of course the government is to blame for 9/11. Its foreign policy since WW2 has been so terrible that this kind of outcome was inevitable. That’s not a conspiracy theory, and Wright does not believe that “Bush did 9/11” or any such nonsense. The fact that people keep bringing up this Wright non-issue is depressing.

Obama has to bring up his faith because it’s right-wing assholes who keep making it an issue. Nobody questions McCain’s Christianity, even though McCain doesn’t act particularly Christian. People, mainly extremists, constantly question Obama’s – they’ll claim he’s atheist, Muslim, just about anything. I’d vote for him even if he were atheist or Muslim, but too many Americans wouldn’t, so unfortunately, Obama is forced to make his faith clear.

On the one hand, Obama is a Christian who wants to reinforce the wall of separation between church and state.

On the other hand, McCain is assumed to be a Christian and wants to keep slaughtering brown people and American soldiers in the desert for a hundred more years, who will stuff the Supreme Court with theocratic puppets, and would make it illegal for poor and rich alike to die penniless in the gutter.